On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 2:09 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 04, 2025, James Houghton wrote:
> > spte_has_volatile_bits() is now a misnomer, as the an SPTE can have its
> > Accessed bit set or cleared without the mmu_lock held, but the state of
> > the Accessed bit is not checked in spte_has_volatile_bits().
> > Even if a caller uses spte_needs_atomic_write(), Accessed bit
> > information may still be lost, but that is already tolerated, as the TLB
> > is not invalidated after the Accessed bit is cleared.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: James Houghton <jthoughton@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
>
> ...
>
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.h b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.h
> > index 59746854c0af..4c290ae9a02a 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.h
> > @@ -519,7 +519,7 @@ static inline u64 get_mmio_spte_generation(u64 spte)
> > return gen;
> > }
> >
> > -bool spte_has_volatile_bits(u64 spte);
> > +bool spte_needs_atomic_write(u64 spte);
> >
> > bool make_spte(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_mmu_page *sp,
> > const struct kvm_memory_slot *slot,
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_iter.h b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_iter.h
> > index 05e9d678aac9..b54123163efc 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_iter.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_iter.h
> > @@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ static inline bool kvm_tdp_mmu_spte_need_atomic_write(u64 old_spte, int level)
> > {
> > return is_shadow_present_pte(old_spte) &&
> > is_last_spte(old_spte, level) &&
> > - spte_has_volatile_bits(old_spte);
> > + spte_needs_atomic_write(old_spte);
>
> Unless you object, I'll change this to spte_needs_atomic_update(), and tweak
> kvm_tdp_mmu_spte_need_atomic_write() accordingly. "write" was a bad choice by
> me. It's not just the store/write that needs to be atomic, it's the entire
> read-modify-write. E.g. KVM needs to preserve the existing value, but for many
> flows, it's even more important that KVM's snapshot of the old SPTE is accurate.
No objections, please make that change. Thanks!
